Skamania Steelie:
This is horrible! I am not an advocate of same sex couples adopting, but one would think that these people would be caring. At least this is how these people portray themselves. They are so caring, they accept all people of race, gender, color, etc, but they are anything, but caring! These gender and sex confused people should not have children, they have very serious mental problems to live with! That is evident!

[NOTE: Lady Checkmate liked Skamania's comment so much that she made it a "featured comment"]

Lady Checkmate:
I guess to the alt-left, those 6 black lives didn't matter, BUT they matter to me. RIP dear children

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - South Carolina debated seceding from the Union more than 150 years ago, a decision that ultimately led to the Civil War. Now, the topic has come up again, amid a national debate over firearms and gun rights.

A trio of state House Republicans on Thursday quietly introduced a bill that would allow lawmakers to debate seceding from the U.S. "if the federal government confiscates legally purchased firearms in this State."

The measure sponsored by Reps. Mike Pitts, Jonathon Hill and Ashley Trantham has no real chance this session. The deadline for bills to move from one chamber to the other is April 10.

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

Could the Prince of the Asturias be the restorer of Christendom? It sounds incredible but the idea has been put forward by some, based on a compilation of historical prophecies which draw enough parallels to modern times to tantalize the imagination. Some of these prophets have been monarchs, some saints and some, well, (let’s get this over with) one is Nostradamus, who I’ve never had much use for with so many of his “predictions” being so vague as to present a multitude of possible interpretations. However, to get him out of the way he will be addressed first. Nostradamus, IV 5, *seems* to predict a reunification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and clearly predicts that France and Spain will be united together after which will be a period of terrible struggle and warfare. The Orthodox prophet, St Methodius of Olympia, in a similar vein, predicts that ‘the west’ and Rome will be overrun by Islam but will be rescued by another power (which many presume to be Russia) after which time the Catholic Church will merge with the Orthodox. There will be a horrific war in which a King Philippe VI, with divine assistance, will drive the Muslims out of Europe, retake Constantinople and reign from there in a revived Roman (or more Byzantine) Empire.

It’s not just the rest of society that’s ignoring the actual problem of bullying in schools, it’s these kids as well. Let them suffer the consequences of short sighted decisions and realize that maybe actual solutions aren’t so cut and dry as they may think. After all, it’s their own egos that keep them from admitting that they, themselves contributed to this situation.

But with the media propping up their every word and feeding their ego, it’s unlikely they will ever learn the necessary lessons that should be taken away from this tragedy.

We need to know more about what "welcoming" means. Of course theys should be welcomed, but trangenderism itself must absolutely not be endorsed.

Being born "in the wrong body" is a concept that utterly rejects God and science. Very rarely, individuals are born with intersex
conditions – but almost everyone has XX or XY chromosomes in every body cell (other than gametes of course). Each human being is a unique, immeasurably valuable individual, God loves them with a love that, like that of a parent, transcends gender - so to change name/anatomy/hormones is unnecessary, and a defiant rebellion against God's perfect plan. We should show transgender people that they are loved, so that they will come into the Christian community where they can be told the Gospel. That doesn't mean that is at all OK to affirm their feelings of being something other than the biological sex that God assigned to them.

What’s most tragic, is that our society’s celebration and encouraging of transgenderism demonstrates it’s rejection of God. It utterly breaks my heart; on the occassions that I've thought deeply about the LGBT movement, I've ended up in tears. Male and female He created us – and yet there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus – that is God has put each of us into the body He deemed best for us - what actually matters is whether we'll spend eternity with Him, and most people around us don't realise that they're at risk of missing their opportunity. We must continually seek with urgency to do all we can to show Jesus to our world.

(these are useful – obviously I do not necessarily agree with each article
entirely)
http://www.psephizo.com/sex...
http://www.thepublicdiscour...
http://dailysignal.com/2016...

Any church with a woman in charge is of the Devil. It would be a cold day in Hell before I'd ever pastor any church with a woman on the board of directors. If that's your messed-up church, get right with God! Biblically, women are allowed to teach other women, be soul-winners, play piano, be a secretary, pray, fast and serve in the Church; but they are absolutely forbidden to have any position of authority over men, voice their opinions publicly in church matters, nor are they permitted to teach men the Word of God. New Testament churches are led by men, as they obey the Word of God; but satanic religious cults are led by women.

Instead of that around 5000 people were partying at Monday the Persian new year in the green facilities there. With heated explanations under the Kurdish partiers, who then escalate to mass drumming and clearly heard shots.

According to a message in the Kölner Bild journal it's not the first time that such incidents ruled on the Decksteiner. It's rather that this unannounced organizing is already going on for years. Without any approval, security, toilet houses or other organisatory precautions. The regular foreign gastronomy of the mundane "house on the sea" next door is because of that in this day and age not open at all and preferably renounces its own sales.

For the city of Köln that however doesn't seem to be a problem, like city talker Inge Schürmann explained towards the Bild journal: "This is a meeting of people, that represent the intended use of the green belt. It's not a formal event."

A statement that we should take with a grain of salt and invites to a small thought experiment: What would the city of Köln say, when every year 5000 skinheads would meet unannounced in a Köln green facility to drink alcohol and beat people? If we ignore for a moment that it is probable that we can't find 50 skinheads in the whole Rhine country this question is of rhetorical nature. Obviously neither the city of Köln nor the police would see such grouping for five minutes without action and instead introduce rigorous steps to the dissolution of that.

If you're wondering why the sudden interest in mermaids, and why Hollywood is pushing out movies like "The Shape Of Water" and tv shows like #Siren, it's because there is an agenda. The agenda is to bring what's in the water onto the earth.

The Bible has a lot to say about the wicked things that dwell beneath the waters. (See Job 26:5, Revelation 9:14, Revelation 13:1)

See, Christians in America are often the last to know or understand what the devices of Satan are, because we aren't told much about them. Either preachers don't teach on them, or many are simply unaware of these things themselves.

Yet the Bible is full of references to what's in the water—something spiritual, ancient and exceedingly wicked.

From the depths of the oceans and seas, much of Satan's operations against humanity and the Church are launched from.

These new tv shows and movies aren't coming up with these things out of thin air. They're getting their marching orders direct from Hell.

And while believers are busy enjoying the shows and thinking nothing of them, they don't realize they are slowly being seduced, lulled to sleep and recruited by Satan as part of his agenda to finally introduce to the world the hidden powers of the sea that are about to make themselves seen and known on planet Earth.

** In my ebook DIVA GODDESS QUEEN 2: MYSTERY BABYLON REVEALED, I discuss the underwater realm of the spirit in much greater detail. This is the place where many (not all) demonic spirits operate from. And it's the source for much of Hollywood's inspiration, and why many in the entertainment industry become sexual hedonists. It's all in the water!

I feel age of consent is more of a social construct which doesn't make it any less value if its there to strengthen a society and that includes making children safe, confident and happy. I don't know if criminalising young adults, breaking up families because of blanket laws and telling a happy child that they should feel bad and dirty is necessarily achieving that. If two people through circumstances end up in love, one is 11 lets say, the other is 19. Perhaps their personal circumstances brought them together, over time they bonded, fell in love and as in any such relationship it turned sexual and mutual. The law would say that they should be broken apart, he should be jailed and she should learn that what they did was wrong and dirty and he was a bad man. The result in this case happens to be she becomes afraid of sex, relationships, has confidence and mental issues well into adulthood. Was that application of the law in her interest, his interest or society's interest? How about 11 and 45 year old since a 25 and 45 year old are both adults.

I don't know the right answers but in my mind it's such a complex area that I don't know if hard laws are always the right answer. More focus should be on sex education and I mean not just biology but also relationships.

The LGBTQ people need God just as much as any other person living in sin out there. Some of them are very unhappy and are hurting. Unfortunately because some Christians do not know how to talk to homosexuals and they judge and condemn them without treating them with love and kindness, this behavior draws a lot of LGBTQ people from God. A straight male pastor once said if life was the other way around and he was supposed to be with a man even though he had attraction towards women, he can understand that it would be really hard for him to let go of these desires in his heart and fully commit to God. So he doesn't judge or condemn LGBTQ people and he understands how they have desires in their heart that are hard for them to control. But I would love for anyone who is reading this who is living in sin and is not saved whether you are LGBTQ, an alcoholic, a liar, a fornicator, an adulterer, someone struggling with gluttony, struggling with pornography, struggling with any form of lusts, struggling with tendencies to gossip, struggling with greed, struggling with pride, etc. God can take these desires out of your heart and make you a completely different person. All sins are equal in gods eyes and once you get saved, all of your sins will be forgiven and they will be nailed on that cross that Jesus died on to give us eternal life. When you get saved you will also receive a gift from God that will teach you how to have self control. God loves every single human being living on this earth. After all he created us, we would not exist without him. If only more people living in sin will just seek God, get saved, and truly experience the love and forgiveness that he has for all of us. God does not wish for any of us to go to hell. But he gave us free will, so we have a choice to live in sin or to get saved and give our lives to God. If someone does not receive salvation, then they cannot go to heaven. Say this prayer below if you are ready to receive salvation and give your life to God.

If you are ready to give your life to God then say this prayer below:

Dear God, Can you please forgive me for all of my sins? I know that I haven't been living my life the way that you would want me to and I am sorry for this. I am now ready to give my life to you. I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior who died on the cross for my sins and that you raised him from the dead. I am ready to get saved and I would like to be set free. In Jesus name, Amen?

Sorry, you cannot possibly be "Christian" and "Gay." That's an irrational oxymoron if ever there was one. To be a TRUE Christian means you would try not to do anything knowingly or deliberately to violate, give offense or even live outside of G-d's Divine laws! That is mortal/moral sin. "Gay" is truly a most despicable Satanic word of mockery and the most contemptuous hatred towards G-d and his laws. The intent behind this perverted word is to cunningly infiltrate enmasse the minds of unsuspecting belligerent souls tempting each one into engaging into the act of sodomy to pervert the very nature of G-d's creatures and then to twist it socially as though it were perfectly natural, which it is NOT!!!! To destroy the family structure from within, to infiltrate the Holy Roman Catholic church, (and all protestant churches too) its seminaries and the children they have access to, and therefore, the nation itself. Look around you. Use your brains and pray...Get real, and get wise fast!?

Infinite Architect: You are a false teacher preaching annihilationism which is unbiblical. You will be held accountable for everyone you deceive.? [...] Did you even watch it? He is saying hell is just a temporary place where you get "refined" and you will eventually make it to heaven and the devil is going to heaven too. This is total heresy and sends a dangerous message to lost people because it makes them think they will escape eternal Hell and they can sin all they want and not have to worry. This clown thinks he has stumbled across special knowledge but he is just a fool twisting scripture and preaching some strange perverted form of Universalism. You can follow him into Hell if you want, it's your freewill to do so.?

ThyWordIsTruth: AMEN brother. Here we go again, someone trying to correct the Greek and Hebrew and using their own private interpretation. Now to the OWNER OF THIS CHANNEL, your problem is that you've either been deceived by a reprobate bible scholar or you hate what the word of God says. Revelation 14:11 KJV says: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Apparently you have more knowledge than 54 of some of the worlds greatest scholars who translated the King James Bible and you obviously believe in a "god" who cannot perfectly preserve his word for future generations. You are a fool and if you don't repent and TRULY put your faith in the Lord Jesus of the BIBLE, you will find out that the lake of fire is a place of eternal torment.

truth96130: @ Infinite Architect Just because people believe that judgment is not forever, that does not mean they will think they can sin all they like with no consequences. There are many crimes that do not have a life sentence.Does everyone think (I think I will commit all those crimes because the punishment is not forever)? Nope.?

ThyWordIsTruth: If you are gullible enough to believe this man than you have a big problem. Not only is he wrong but in denying the TRUTH of eternal hell is to deny a fundamental of the Christian faith! Also it is NOT foolish to believe that the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God for the English speaking people. Have you heard the saying 'a little Greek is a dangerous thing?' Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.?

truth96130: 1. "He is trying to correct the Greek and Hebrew and using their own private interpretation."-- What part of (the Greek word translated as torment, is touchstone) is a private interpretation ? Look it up before you accuse. 2. "He has either been deceived or hates what the word of God says." --Calling people deceived because they know something you did not know.
does not mean they are deceived. Try to study up on the Greek word they translated (torture) before you falsely accuse someone. 3. "Revelation 14:11" --Is the book of revelation filled with metaphors, symbols and figures of speech? Yes. Does torment have smoke? No. Does smoke rise up forever? No. Can there be a forever after forever? No because the first forever will never end. Can people never rest? Only if they have an infinite amount of energy. Do people have an infinite amount of energy? No. Apparently your taking what is not literal and trying to say it is. 4. "Apparently you have more knowledge than 54 of some of the worlds greatest scholars who translated the King James Bible." Question --If the KJV translators were so perfect in their translation, than why did they give Alternate translations to over 1000 bible verses (in the margins) and many of them had different meanings. If they got (the original one right) there is no need to put another one in the margins. 5. "You obviously believe in a "god" who cannot perfectly preserve his word for future generations." --Are you saying that God will not allow any one to make a miscopy in a bible? A) Yes. B) No. 6. "TRULY put your faith in the Lord Jesus of the BIBLE." --What name is the only one by which we must be saved??

truth96130: 1. Any one that interprets the bible differently than you do are all false teachers? When you become God, than you can assume your interpretation is perfect. 2. He is not deceiving people just because he interprets the bible differently than you do. 3. "This is total heresy." --No, what you were taught is heresy. Because it teaches God is the eternal oppressor and the opposite of the savor to the majority of mankind. 4. "He is a clown because he thinks he has special knowledge." --Personal attacks prove nothing. Back it up with scripture if you can. If you can't than you have no argument.?

Hope Remains: The KJV is just as flawed as any other English version. I have nearly 40 years experience working with scripture in the original languages, and taught Hebrew and Greek for many years. God preserved His word in the original languages. That preservation does NOT extend to any translation. The KJV translators were charged with creating a Bible that would support the teachings of the Anglican Church. As a result, they tampered with numerous verses to bring the Bible into line with church doctrine. Further, KJV, like some other versions, contains a verse the translators almost certainly knew was a fraud. 1 John 5:7, as found in KJV, et al, is called the Johannine Comma. It cannot be found in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the New Testament, nor in any of the early Latin versions. It first appeared in late versions of the Vulgate, added by some anonymous monk copying over the text. It breaks the sense of the passage, and there is not a legitimate Bible scholar in the world who thinks John wrote it. It did not find its way into a Greek version until the 11th century, when someone scribbled it into the margin of a Greek New Testament. When Erasmus created his Greek manuscript, he revised it to agree with late versions of the Vulgate, which was a huge mistake. The translators of KJV chose to ignore all the ancient Greek texts at their disposal, and used primarily Erasmus' so-called Textus Receptus, a seriously flawed version. There is no real substitute for taking the time to learn the original languages and studying scripture as originally written. 2 Timothy 2:15.?

ThyWordIsTruth: You mean the translators of the KJV chose to ignore the manuscripts that don't agree with one another? So to have the perfect word of God we have to learn Greek and Hebrew, what rubbish. Well go on then take your Novum Testamentum Graece and preach it to people on the street.?

Hope Remains: Hmmm... perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. There are small differences in all Greek manuscripts. No two agree completely. The KJV translators rejected all the older, more authoritative manuscripts, in favor of a flawed manuscript that was only about 100 years old. Now, if you want to put all your faith in a Bible translated (poorly) from that flawed manuscript, go for it. But don't expect God to applaud that decision. You also ignored the fact that KJV contains a verse that is a proven fraud. I guess you don't care about that either.?

ThyWordIsTruth: Well don't expect God to applaud a bible like the NIV that says the Jesus fell from heaven and not Lucifer like the NIV in Isaiah 14:12.?

Hope Remains: I am no fan of NIV. There is no fully accurate vernacular Bible. But in NIV's defense, it does NOT say Jesus fell from heaven in that verse. KJV uses the word Lucifer, which is a lousy translation of the Hebrew word Heylel, which means "Daystar." That name was given by God to the devil when he was first created as a cherub. After he fell, God reclaimed the name for Himself, and the former Heylel became known as Satan.?

truth96130: If you want to get technical, it can be a dangerous thing to know no Greek. You said--"You mean the translators of the KJV chose to ignore the manuscripts that don't agree with one another ?" --Thats wrong, in fact they did use manuscripts that did not all agree with one another. That is why they had alternate translations in the margins of the very first KJV bible. I am still waiting for an answer. Question--Is it possible for there to be a miscopy in a KJV bible? A) Yes. B) No. Rather than just accusing him of being wrong with out backing it up, tell us exactly what he said that
was (wrong) and then explain to us the correct way. If you can not do that, than you have no argument.?

Jean-Marie Le Pen represents for the APF and nationalists in general an extraordinary point of reference He is for all Europeans the very epitome of a history of ideological coherence and resistance; for the fighting people in our Continent our Jean-Marie Le Pen is a man of incredible value and courage.

We welcome Jean-Marie Le Pen at a time of revolutionary changes in Europe – our guide and leader for the oncoming struggles and victories!

You can say what you want but DONALD J TRUMP was picked by God to be president. Black and white Christian was praying for Trump to be presdent for along time and God answered there prayers all the media all the experts said there was noway he could beat Hillary Clinton but with God all things are possible and he won fair and square . You can whimper and moan all you want but God's pick is in the White House whether you like it or not .

(=In response to a Flat Earth Debunking Video - should also be noted that in that same thread there's another fundie who completely took over the conversation, but left too many comments to post here=)

Thank you for introducing your subscribers to the Flat Earth concept. For those of you new to this, get ready, because your world is about to change, and it's never going to be the same again. Everyone laughs at first, but when you're done, ask yourself this: When did you first find out you lived on a globe? Because of the model you saw when you were six, or because of the ONE picture you saw in a textbook. Do your own research, and ask questions.?

The sex cult NXIVM – from their Mexican press office – issued a social media statement in Spanish hinting that the arrest of leader Keith Raniere a/k/a The Vanguard, on sex trafficking charges, is much like the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Raniere is known to followers as Vanguard.

Their statement reads:

English translation:

The story is that more than 2,000 years ago – a day like today – Jesus the Nazarene was arrested, after having been betrayed by one of his own, and then crucified on the cross. How threatened could the people back then have been to do something like that? How much did they have to invent to justify his death? Today, in modern times, some things remain unchanged ?? #somosmaslosbuenos [we are good] #amorenelmundo [love in the world] # ?

You know, different children have brains that myelinate at different rates. Part of the neurons, the functioning of the brain, if you will. It’s not like all children are born and their brains are in the exact same state and they can do the exact same things at the exact same time. And it’s not even in the exact same order!

But what really counts is where they are and what the next step is to help them go forward. And wherever they end up is the best that they can end up. You don’t want to want enlightenment for every child. That’s one step worse than you wanting it for yourself.

Allison Mack:

It’s like forced enlightenment.

Keith Raniere, sarcastically:

Yes exactly, I want you to be enlightened.

Allison Mack:
So, I just was curious: what do you see as the greatest limitation between men and women in their quest to relate to each other in a loving and compassionate way?

Keith Raniere:
Well, the biggest limitation that women have is that they’re women. And the greatest limitation men have is that they’re men.

One of the most evil aspects of Nazi ideology was the dehumanization of its opponents: the Jews, communists, Poles, Gypsies, gays and so forth. It was a necessary precondition, psychologically, for what ultimately became mass murder.

But it takes other forms, too, that are harder to spot. We may use them ourselves occasionally in considering political opponents and not even realize it. The effect, though, is no less dehumanizing.

A very recent example of the dehumanization of conservatives came against Sen. Ted Cruz, who was confronted by activist Tammy Talpas over his support for repealing Obamacare, “If you force me into a high-risk pool, you will either bankrupt me or kill me. I take these threats of medical aggression personally and seriously, and I can assure you I’m not the only Texan who does. My question is: Will you pledge to submit to a DNA test to prove that you’re human?”

The implication, of course, is that if you support repealing Obamacare, you lack human compassion. You’re less than human.

This is a rather mild form, yet still pretty common, of dehumanization tactics by the left.

It has also been used to legitimize forms of political violence. U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), said to be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination in 2020, when asked a silly question by Ellen DeGeneres on television of who she’d rather be stuck in an elevator with, President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Vice President Mike Pence, joked, “Does one of us have to come out alive?”

Now potential political violence against the President and those in his administration has become a punchline on daytime talk shows.

Last year, other forms of political violence described against the President included portraying the assassination of President Donald Trump in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” or Kathy Griffin’s depicted decapitation of Trump.

President Trump himself has been repeatedly portrayed as a modern-day Hitler. If you support him, you must be a Nazi. “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams has written often on the dangers of this Hitlerization of our politics.

The “punch a Nazi” campaign itself was a somewhat ironic twist of history, insofar as the dehumanizing tactic since World War II has become to portray one’s opponents as Nazi monsters, in this case Trump supporters, who are similarly bereft of the right to live without fear of violence.

To be clear, neither Trump nor his supporters are Nazis. They are being portrayed as Nazis by the left, which makes it easier, psychologically, to deck one on the street.

Ask yourself: Do you own a “Make America Great Again” hat? Would you think twice before putting it on and walking down a city street today? If you answer the latter in the affirmative, congratulations, you too are a victim of political intimidation.

There is little wonder why this demonization led to violent riots in San Jose and Chicago during the election campaign with Trump supporters being physically assaulted. Then there was the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, Sen. Rand Paul and other Republicans at a Congressional baseball game practice in June 2017 by James Hodgkinson, a radicalized nut who thought President Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election.

This dehumanization also legitimizes using the color of law to prosecute one’s political opponents, for example with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecution of Trump campaign officials as somehow being foreign agents in league with Russia.

In a recent Saturday Night Live skit portraying Mueller, Becca K. played by Cecily Strong, representing Democrats, is devastated to learn that President Donald Trump might not be prosecuted by Mueller. But, Kate McKinnon, depicting Mueller, offers a consolation prize: “If it makes you feel any better, the Kush is cooked,” referring to the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner as potentially being the target of prosecution.

In short, they might not be able to get the President, but destroying the First Family will have to do. That’ll show him and everyone else what the consequences of opposition are.

Similarly, any communication by Trump with Russia — principal among the President’s Article II constitutional power to conduct foreign affairs — is viewed as tantamount to treason. This has manifested itself even at the White House, where almost every diplomatic visit or call with Russia instantly leaks and then is criminalized by media outlets.

Most recently President Trump’s conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin calling for talks on preventing another nuclear arms race — you know, which might prevent a nuclear war — was leaked and again used to portray the President as a foreign agent. This, despite a long history of American presidents since John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev installed the red telephone after the Cuban Missile Crisis, who engaged with talks with Russia first on strategic arms limitations and then eventually, reductions.

Elsewhere, this dehumanization has resulted in opponents of gun control measures — which really amount to gun confiscation — by the March for our Lives movement being accused of complicity in the murdering of children by Nikolas Cruz. Surviving Parkland student Cameron Kasky told Sen. Marco Rubio, at the CNN forum on Feb. 21, “Senator Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down the barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz.” Disagree with them, and you support mass murder. You’re an accomplice.

The dehumanization of the opposition can even be used to delegitimize reasonable discourse itself. There was the push to “unfriend” Trump supporters on Facebook. Actor Robert De Niro’s reaction to the success of the new Roseanne show, said to be pro-Trump (perhaps insofar as it’s not anti-Trump), was to suggest it wasn’t worth discussing, “We’re at a point … where it’s beyond trying to see another person’s point of view.”

In 2016, De Niro blatantly used the dehumanizing tactic, calling Trump a “dog” who he’d like to “punch in the face.”

Mind you, this is not merely about the animalization of the opposition, portraying opponents in the guise of animals or other creatures, often quite common for example in political cartoons. That’s not what we’re talking about here.

When combined with some of the other elements described above, fed by a genuine belief that the opponent truly is less than human, then yes, the animalization of political enemies — which was absolutely used by the Nazis — can become a potent weapon. Couple it with, say, a call to violence or use it to portray entire groups or races of people as subhuman, and you’ve probably crossed that line.

That’s plenty of examples. They are by no means exhaustive. And dehumanization is not merely the province of the left, but recently it has become increasingly prevalent with gathering support in the mainstream.

It should be alarming.

But it isn’t.

The Ted Cruz story where he’s supposed to take a DNA test to prove he’s human was shared tens of thousands of times as it was reported across media outlets almost as an afterthought. Maybe you saw it on your Facebook feed this week. It’s just a joke, right?

The question perhaps we should ask is what impact this might be having on the nation at large? Because it appears that it is really beginning to take its toll.

Recall, not only can dehumanization be used to legitimize political violence, in its most extreme form, in Germany, after years of endless state-run propaganda, it was channeled toward the destruction of millions of people.

Right now, we’re clearly not there yet in this country. But when one half of the nation starts to believe the other half is no longer worthy of rights or even basic respect, the country is in trouble.

There are consequences for this tactic, which on the surface may appear to simply serve a partisan agenda. Something to agitate supporters in preparation of the next round of elections. But underneath, it seems to bear all the hallmarks of pure hatred. This is not how you win elections. It’s how you create social discord.

The real danger is that this demonization of Trump, his supporters, conservatives and others is that it could be generating true believers, who no longer see their opponents as fellow Americans — and perhaps not even from the same species.

Stray/street/feral dogs are not just a threat to humans and a biological garbage. They are also fundamentally and intrinsically evil. Therefore, they must be eliminated completely, ruthlessly quickly and efficiently worldwide. Depending on the prevalent culture of the nation in question, either on the spot – by using a fast-acting poison, shooting with an airgun or a firearm or bludgeoning to death with whatever object available, or in a mobile gas chamber or in a stationary gas chamber.

To protect oneself from the spiritual Evil of a street dog one absolutely must not hate the animal. Killing of a street dog must be driven not my hatred for the animal, but by love for humans that deserve to be freed from the street dog evil and menace. Elimination of a street dog must be carried out as quickly, cleanly, efficiently and painlessly as possible. The animal must not be tortured under any circumstances, because by torturing an animal you develop a very dangerous connection to the Evil that this dog channels.

Unfortunately, it is not realistic to expect that the corresponding government authorities will suddenly become super-efficient and will eliminate all street dogs in their jurisdictions. Therefore, the members of every community in question in most cases (especially in Third World countries) must take matters in their own hands. Hence, the total elimination of ALL street dogs will inevitably be a grassroots initiative and a grassroots project.

Fully supported by the Almighty God. And with His help, nothing will stop us from cleansing the Earth from the filth and evil of stray dogs.